RED 

MEXICO 

The  Facts 


of  (Holumliuje 

SUPREME  COUNCIL 
New  Haven,  Conn. 

1926 


THE  TEST 

The  information  in  this  booklet 
is  compiled  almost  entirely  from 
non- Catholic  sources.  The  Mex- 
ican attack  on  the  Catholic 
Church  is  not  merely  a religious 
persecution.  It  is  an  attack  on 
the  established  principles  of  civ- 
ilization and  humanity.  It  is  an 
attack  on  those  principles  which 
some  peoples  have  shed  blood 
and  suffered  to  establish  and  pre- 
serve to  our  day.  The  Mexican 
problem  is  not  alone  a Catholic 
problem.  It  is  the  problem  of  lib- 
erty-loving, fair-minded,  free 
men  everywhere.  Much  of 
the  material  here  published  bears 
witness  to  this.  A man* s attitude 
to  the  Mexican  persecution  is  a 
certain  test  of  his  ideas  and  ideals 
and  his  spirit. 


First  Edition — One  Million  Copies 


CALLES  ^^SOCIAL  REFORM^* 

{The  facts  of  a few  days  of  persecution 
compiled  from  New  York 
newspapers) 

FIFTY  TO  SIXTY  DEAD,  ' 

TWO  HUNDRED  HURT, 

WEEK  ENDING  AUGUST  8 

{Herald- Tribune,  Aug.  S) 

SIXTY  SHOT  IN  GUADALAJARA 

{Times,  Aug.  10) 

SEVENTEEN  EXECUTED, 

B Y TROOPS  IN  ZAHUA  YO 

{World,  Aug.  10) 

PRIEST  REPORTED  KILLED 
SEVERAL  INJURED  IN  M WHO  AC  AN 

{Times,  Aug.  11) 

THIRTY  EXECUTED  IN  MEXICO 
ARCHBISHOP  REPORTS 

{Times,  Aug.  12) 

TROOPS  SHOOT  FIVE 

PRIESTS  AGAINST  WALL 

{World,  Aug.  12) 


Mexicans  Intolerance 

{From  the  SL  Louis  Post  Dispatch) 

We  set  forth  below  the  religious  provisions  writ- 
ten into  the  Mexican  constitution  in  1917. 

It  is  these  provisions  that  the  government  now 
seeks  to  enforce. 

They  are  so  repellent,  so  alien  to  our  own  ideas 
of  the  right  to  worship  as  we  see  fit,  the  right  to 
own,  hold  and  dispose  of  property,  and  finally  the 
right  to  free  speech,  that  further  editorial  com- 
ment seems  almost  unnecessary. 

There  are  nine  major  restrictions  against  the 
church  and  church  institutions  and  clergy  as  fol- 
lows: They  are  forbidden — 

To  own  church  real  estate,  or  mortgages  on 
same. 

To  own  church  buildings,  or  any  other  buildings. 

To  possess  invested  funds  or  other  productive 
property.  To  maintain  convents  or  nunneries. 

To  conduct  primary  schools. 

To  direct  or  administer  charitable  institutions. 

To  hold  religious  ceremonies  outside  of  church 
buildings. 

To  cloth  their  ministers  with  a garb  indicative 
of  their  calling. 

Ministers  of  religion  are  debarred  from  publicly 
criticizing  the  fundamental  laws,  the  authorities  in 
particular,  or  the  government  in  general.  They 
may  not  vote,  hold  office,  or  assemble  for  political 
purposes.  No  religious  periodical  may  comment  on 
political  affairs.  Official  permission  must  be 
obtained  before  opening  a new  temple  of  worship 
for  public  use.  The  state  legislature  may  determine 
the  maximum  number  of  ministers  of  religious 
creeds  according  to  the  needs  of  a locality.  The 
government  regulates  public  worship. 

Is  there  any  cause  for  wonder  that  the  religious 
people  of  Mexico  are  in  revolt  or  that  Mexico  is  for- 
feiting the  respect  of  other  nations? 


4 


The  G,  X,  Q.  of  the  Present 
Crisis  in  Mexico 

{The  following  informative  letter  by  a nonrCatholic, 
a citizen  of  the  United  States,  was  published  in  the 
Oklahoma  News,  Oklahoma  City,  August  6th,  and  is 
reprinted  with  the  permission  of  the  publishers:) 

The  article  published  by  The  News,  Tuesday, 
was,  to  my  mind,  not  very  well  named.  It  was  not 
the  “A.  B.  C.”  of  the  Mexican  crisis,  but  much  more 
mixed.  That  is  why  I call  it  the  "G.  X.  Q.” 

I,  too,  have  lived  in  Mexico.  I went  there  thirty- 
one  years  ago,  and  for  many  years,  through  its  cen- 
tral highlands  and  its  southern  jungles,  I knew  its 
people. 

I am  out  of  there  now  less  than  a month,  after 
two  years  of  continuous  residence,  so  that  I have 
had  an  opportunity  to  observe  the  reactions  of  the 
people  to  some  of  the  events  that  have  led  up  to 
the  present  so-called  crisis. 

But  one  might  live  a lifetime  in  Mexico,  as  an 
American,  and  know  little  of  the  causes  of  the 
present  trouble.  To  know  these  one  must  have 
been  a student  of  Mexican  history.  I think  I can 
claim  fairly  to  have  been  all  that. 

The  Mexican  ** Inquisition** 

Your  “A.  B.  C.”  informant  touched  upon  the 
Inquisition  in  Mexico.  He  did  not  do  any  more, 
and  he  did  not  need  to.  Just  to  mention  it  suffices 
to  conjure  in  the  minds  of  his  readers  the  phantom 
terrors  we  have  been  taught  to  associate  exclusively 
with  that  institution. 

The  writer  once  searched,  with  the  eyes  of  a 
Protestant  and  a Mason,  through  many  volumes  of 
the  records  of  the  Mexican  Inquisition  in  an  en- 
deavor to  discover  something  that  would  substan- 
tiate the  grisly  tales  of  horror  with  which  it  has 
been  adorned,  but  could  find  in  them  only  the  sor- 


5 


did  records  that  are  common  to  our  modern 
"Morals  Court.” 

For  that  is  what  it  really  was;  and  the  Indians 
were  specifically  exempted  from  its  jurisdiction. 

For  sheer  terror  and  oppression  the  “dry  squad” 
will,  in  any  one  year,  surpass  the  Inquisition's  rec- 
ord of  nearly  300. 

To  call  Hidalgo  the  “Washington  of  Mexico”  is 
to  insult  the  sacred  memory  of  the  Father  of  His 
Country.  Hidalgo  led  his  Indian  hosts  to  battle  in 
defense  of  their  king,  not  for  independence. 

What  Hidalgo  Did 

Whatever  ideas  he  may  have  had  in  the  back  of 
his  head  for  independence,  his  voice  was  raised  in 
favor  of  Fernando  VII,  who  was  a prisoner  of 
Napoleon  in  France,  and  it  was  against  the  ideals  of 
the  French  revolution  and  against  “liberal”  Span- 
iards that  he  pretended  to  strive. 

And  he  ordered  the  butchery  of  innocent  non- 
combatants,  some  of  whom  carried  his  signed  safe- 
conduct  in  their  pockets. 

The  outbreak  led  by  Hidalgo  and  his  successors 
was  suppressed  by  Mexican  volunteers;  nearly  80 
per  cent,  of  the  royalist  forces  being  composed  of 
Mexicans  led  by  Mexican  officers,  not  a few  of 
them,  before  the  end,  being  revolutionary  bands 
taking  advantage  of  the  offers  of  amnesty  to  sur- 
render in  a body  and  join  the  armies  of  the  viceroy. 

At  last  only  two  revolutionary  leaders  remained 
at  large,  Victoria,  a lone  fugitive  in  the  mountains 
of  Vera  Cruz,  and  Guerrero  with  a number  of  fol- 
1 owers  in  the  inaccessible  fastnesses  of  the  region 
now  bearing  his  name  as  a state. 

Some  years  later  a barrack  revolution  in  Spain 
brought  forth  a “liberal”  constitution,  and  the 
Mexican  people,  seeing  their  cherished  institutions 
in  peril,  supported  Iturbide  almost  unanimously  in 
his  almost  bloodless  revolution  which  freed  them 
from  radical  Spain. 


6 


The  Downfall  of  Iturhide 

Iturbide  was  the  real  "Liberator”  of  Mexico,  and 
if  he  permitted  himself  to  be  declared  emperor  it 
was  as  much  due  to  a knowledge  of  Mexican  psy- 
chology as  to  any  promptings  of  personal  ambition. 

That  his  downfall  and  exile  was  hastened  by  the 
meddling  interference  of  President  Monroe  is  not  a 
matter  of  pride  to  thoughtful  Americans,  and  that 
he  had  the  vision  to  foresee  the  impending  ruin  of 
his  country  and  sought  to  prevent  it,  and  lost  his 
life  in  the  effort,  but  adds  luster  to  his  name. 

Similarly  criminal-minded  men  sought  to  over- 
throw Washington.  Washington  survived,  Itur- 
bide perished,  and  for  his  loss  Mexico  has  been  pay- 
ing with  blood  and  tears  and  treasure  for  a hundred 
years. 

When  we  separate  barrack  mutinies  from  revolu- 
tions we  find  Mexico  has  had  but  three  of  the  latter. 
The  first  was  put  down  by  Mexican  volunteers,  the 
second  and  third  owed  their  success  entirely  to 
armed  assistance  rendered  by  the  United  States 
government. 

There  have  been  many  barrack  mutinies,  but 
they  have  seldom  extended  beyond  the  capital  or 
the  larger  cities  where  they  originated. 

The  trouble  that  is  Mexico  had  its  being  in'the 
efforts  of  a small  but  militant  group  to  control  the 
appointment  of  bishops  and  priests,  and  the  con- 
fiscation of  the  funds  and  properties  held  by  the 
numerous  educational  and  beneficent  institutions 
founded  and  endowed  during  three  centuries  by 
wealthy  and  pious  donors. 

Colleges  Turned  into  Barracks 

It  is  this  control  and  confiscation  which  the 
revolutionary  has  in  mind  when  he  talks  of  "separa- 
tion of  church  and  state”;  it  is  the  efforts  of  the 
clergy  to  prevent  this  control  and  confiscation  that 
he  brands  as  "the  clergy  meddling  in  politics”;  and 
it  is  the  possession  of  these  institutions  and  their 


7 


properties  which  he  refers  to  when  he  mentions 
“temporal  power.” 

To  the  successful  efforts  of  this  militant  group 
may  be  charged  the  present  illiteracy  of  the  Mex- 
ican people.  This  is  not  difficult  to  understand 
after  seeing  the  numerous  buildings,  that  once  were 
colleges,  now  being  used  as  frowsy  tenements  or 
lousy  barracks,  and  all  crumbling  into  ruin. 

All  the  talk  you  hear  about  thousands  of  schools 
opened  in  Mexico  by  the  governments  of  Carranza, 
Obregon,  or  Calles,  is  best  described  as  bunk. 
Wherever  you  go  you  see  ruin,  not  the  ruin  of 
recent  revolt  but  the  ruin  of  a century  of  decay  and 
abandonment,  of  a gradual  return  to  pre-Colum- 
bian barbarism.  * * * 

The  anti-religious  laws  of  Mexico  are  an  outrage 
against  civilization,  and  the  attempts  to  enforce 
them  a throwback  to  barbarism;  and  both  are  acts 
of  pillage  and  efforts  to  render  the  people  helpless 
against  that  pillage. 

Calles  Playing  With  Fire 

The  constitutions  of  1857  and  1917  were  never 
submitted  to  the  people.  Both  were  imposed  upon 
the  people  by  an  infinitesimal  militant  minority  by 
bullets  and  not  by  ballots. 

The  people  of  Mexico  hate  the  whole  tribe  of 
revolutionists  and  politicians  but  are  helpless 
against  it  because  it  is  organized  and  armed,  and 
because  the  bishops,  to  whom  they  look  as  their 
real  and  chosen  leaders,  resolutely  refuse  to  call 
them  to  revolt. 

If  the  bishops  of  the  Catholic  Church  in  Mexico 
were  to  forget  for  a moment  their  peace  principles 
and  theology  and  call  the  people  to  arms,  the  men 
now  in  control  of  Mexico  would  be  torn  into  little 
pieces;  it  would  be  15,000,000  against  less  than  a 
hundred  thousand. 

But  the  Bishops  will  not  do  this.  Perhaps  they 


8 


fear  that  if  the  Indian  once  starts  no  one  will  be 
able  to  stop  him.  He  may  start  in  spite  of  them. 

The  Calles  government  is  playin^with  fire^and, 
if  it  continues  in  its  madness,  America  may  have 
the  thankless  job  of  putting  it  out.  The  Mexican 
people  realize  that  there  is  but  one  certain  remedy; 
only  Calles  and  his  crowd  view  it  with  apprehen- 
sion. 

As  for  the  demands  of  the  Church  in  Mexico, 
they  are  easily  stated.  She  asks  for  the  same 
religious  liberty  enjoyed  by  all  under  the  Stars  and 
Stripes. 

But  she  will  not  get  it  because  with  it  would  come 
a free  ballot  and  honest  elections,  blessings  that 
Calles  and  his  friends  view  with  even  greater  fear 
than  they  view  intervention.  They  m’ght  be  good 
for  the  Mexican  people,  but  they  would  be  fatal  to 
Mexican  revolutionary  politicos. 


APPROBATION 

**Thi8  opportunity  is  taken  to  con~ 
gratulate  the  Knights  of  Columbus  on 
the  splendid  pronouncement  concern- 
ing  the  Mexican  situation.  It  seemed  to 
have  aroused  a dormant  element  in  this 
country  and  to  have  shown  it  that 
American  Catholics  may  not,  with  im- 
punity, be  disregarded  and  slighted.*^ 

CARDINAL  DOUGHERTY 
Archbishop  of  Philadelphia. 


9 


Contempt  for  U.  S,  Rights 
in  Mexico 

By  John  Clayton 

{The  following  article  hy  a staff  correspondent  of 
the  Chicago  Tribune,  written  after  a month's  inves- 
tigation in  Mexico,  was  published  in  its  issue 
of  August  Sth,  and  is  here  reprinted  with  the  pub- 
lisher's permission,) 

San  Antonio,  Texas,  August  7. — Mexico  and  the 
United  States  have  reached  an  impasse.  What  is 
branded  as  brutality  in  government,  failure  to 
fulfill  agreements,  disregard  of  the  rights  of  Amer- 
ican citizens  and  failure  to  grant  adequate  protec- 
tion to  American  lives  have  brought  the  Mexican 
government  face  to  face  with  the  most  serious 
diplomatic  controversy  with  the  United  States 
since  the  government  of  General  Obregon  was 
granted  recognition  in  1923. 

Obligated  to  Protect  Yanks 

The  Obregon-Calles  jimta  was  granted  recogni- 
tion by  the  American  government  after  it  had  un- 
dertaken solemn  obligations  towards  citizens  and 
property  of  the  United  States.  It  was  saved  from 
the  attack  of  De  La  Huerta,  who  sought  its  over- 
throw, because  the  United  States  supplied  arms 
and  munitions  of  war. 

And  up  to  now  not  a clause  of  the  Warren-Payne- 
Ross-Roa  agreement  has  been  fulfilled,  nor  has  any 
attempt  been  made  to  live  up  to  undertakings 
agreed  to  by  the  Mexican  delegates,  Ramon  Ross 
and  Gonzales  Roa,  and  ratified  by  the  Mexican 
Chamber  of  deputies. 

Five  Hundred  Notes  Evaded 

More  than  five  hundred  notes  calling  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Mexican  government  to  its  failures  have 
been  written  by  American  Ambassador  James  Shef- 


10 


field  to  the  Mexican  government.  It  is  said  that  the 
answers  have,  without  exception,  been  evasions  or 
direct  refusals  to  act.  The  situation  is  such  that 
Mr.  Sheffield  is  leaving  Mexico  City  on  August  13 
to  report  personally  to  President  Coolidge. 

Everything  that  can  be  done  by  diplomacy  has 
been  done,  it  is  said,  and  the  opinion  in  informed 
circles  is  that  the  administration  is  faced  with  the 
necessity  of  giving  way  to  Mexican  arrogance  or 
making  President  Calles  understand  that  unless  he 
lives  up  to  his  agreements  another  form  of  action 
must  follow. 

Since  the  signatures  of  the  four  delegates  were 
fixed  to  the  Warren-Payne  agreement  which 
brought  recognition,  thirty  Americans  have  been 
killed  in  cold  blood,  and  of  all  the  thirty  cases  only 
one  man  has  been  sentenced  for  his  deed — sen- 
tenced to  twenty  years  in  prison.  The  Tribune  cor- 
respondent is  in  possession  of  the  details  in  all  these 
thirty  cases,  and  is  prepared  to  disclose  them. 

Seize  Lands  Without  Payment 

There  have  been  approximately  five  hundred 
cases  of  land  seizures  under  the  agrarian  law,  with- 
out payment  either  in  bonds  or  cash,  since  the 
agreement  was  signed,  in  contravention  of  its  terms. 
No  satisfaction  has  been  given  by  the  Mexican  gov- 
ernment in  these  cases,  nor  has  any  promise  been 
made  as  to  when  and  how  payment  would  be 
arranged.  Under  the  terms  of  the  agreement  pay- 
ment must  follow  within  thirty  days  or  the  prop- 
erty be  returned. 

The  oil  question,  the  mining  question,  the  alien 
land  law,  important  as  they  are,  form  only  a part  of 
the  controversy.  The  religious  struggle  I have  not 
considered  in  presenting  the  facts  I am  disclosing  in 
this  first  article.  The  main  issue  between  the 
United  States  and  Mexico  is  the  utter  failure  of  the 
Mexican  government  to  live  up  to  agreements  and 
to  protect  American  lives. 


11 


Waives  Agreements  Aside 

Some  of  my  American  friends  in  Mexico  blame 
the  impasse  on  Calles’  advisers.  Perhaps  they  are 
right.  But  the  fact  remains  that  when  any  ques- 
tion dealing  with  the  Warren-Payne  agreement  is 
brought  before  the  president  of  the  Mexican 
republic  the  powerful  dictator  of  life  and  death  for 
fifteen  million  dismisses  them  with  the  declaration 
that  the  government  of  General  Obregon  made 
these  agreements,  and  he,  General  Calles,  is  not 
bound  to  fulfill  them,  and  that  this  is  a new  admin- 
istration, responsible  only  for  its  own  promises  and 
its  own  acts. 

Many  Americans  probably  have  forgotten  the 
heroism  of  Mrs.  Rosalie  Evans  in  defending  her 
property  until  she  paid  the  supreme  penalty  of  her 
life.  Mrs.  Evans  was  a British  subject,  but  an 
American  by  birth.  Ambassador  Sheffield,  who  was 
representing  British  interests  immediately  after 
the  crime,  made  the  strongest  representations  to  the 
Mexican  government. 

The  men  who  committed  the  murder  were 
known.  At  one  time  they  were  in  jail,  but  even  in 
this  dastardly  case  no  action  has  been  taken  and 
the  murderers  are  at  large.  The  men  behind  the 
murders,  Montes,  a red  labor  leader,  and  Jos6 
Maria  Sanchez,  are  still  holding  trusted  positions  in 
provincial  government. 

Mrs.  Evans  was  only  one.  There  are  many 
others,  and  there  will  be  more  in  the  future  unless 
a different  attitude  is  shown  by  the  Mexican  gov- 
ernment. 

General  Calles  rules  Mexico  at  the  point  of  a gun. 
He  is  responsible  to  no  one.  He  does  what  he 
pleases.  His  elections  are  pronounced  travesties, 
and  there  is  evidence  that  he  does  not  hesitate  to 
kill  an  opposition  candidate  if  the  man  can  be  put 
out  of  the  running  in  no  other  way.  Witness  the 
death  of  Manuel  Espino,  killed  at  Dolores  Hidalgo, 


12 


and  a man  named  Dominguez,  killed  by  state 
police  at  Oaxaca  during  the  most  recent  elections 
for  congress.  They  are  two  of  many. 

**Policy  of  Finger  Shaking^^ 

Elihu  Root  long  ago  summed  up  the  Mexican 
situation  when  he  said,  “You  cannot  shake  a fist  at 
a Mexican  leader  and  then  shake  a finger.”  “Finger 
shaking,”  is  what  most  Americans  in  Mexico  and 
even  many  Mexicans  call  the  policy  pursued  by 
our  government  for  years. 

No  one  knows  this  better  than  the  Mexican 
leader,  and  when  he  saw  we  did  not  intend  to  press 
seriously  for  fulfillment  of  international  obligations 
he  made  the  best  of  his  situation.  The  result  Is 
that,  according  to  Americans  who  have  been  in 
Mexico  for  years,  and  whose  opinions  are  not  in- 
fluenced by  their  pocket  book  nerve,  we  are  in  a 
much  worse  position  today  than  in  1924.  Then  we 
had  at  least  hopes  that  the  Obregon-Calles  junta 
would  fulfill  its  obligations. 

Only  Broken  Promises 
Today  we  have  nothing  but  broken  promises  and 
the  prospect  that  American  rights  and  American 
lives  will  continue  to  be  disregarded  as  long  as  we 
write  notes  that  have  nothing  back  of  them. 

The  state  department  is  today  in  possess?  on  of 
information,  which,  if  given  to  the  American  public, 
would  swing  the  country  overnight  from  indiffer- 
ence or  favor  of  Calles  to  open  antagonism.  Men 
in  high  positions  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  state 
department  owes  it  to  the  American  public  to  dis- 
close the  facts,  but  such  action  has  not  yet  been 
taken.  No  one  but  the  state  department  is  in  pos- 
session of  anything  like  the  complete  facts,  and 
they  would  have  more  facts  but  for  the  circum- 
stances that  many  Americans  with  just  claims 
have  given  up  the  struggle  for  the  moment  and  fail 
to  register  their  claims  through  the  American  em- 
bassy in  Mexico  or  the  claims  commission. 


13 


Americans  Have  No  Chance*^ 

Some  American  citizens,  despairing  of  action 
by  the  State  department  which  would  give  them 
justice,  have  tried  to  obtain  it  in  the  Mexican 
courts.  And  they  now  say  that  here,  as  in  other 
departments  of  the  Mexican  government,  they 
haven’t  a chance. 

A friend  of  mine  whose  business  interests  in 
Mexico  are  large,  recently  had  a case  pending 
before  a Mexican  judge  of  prominence  and  distinc- 
tion. The  evening  before  the  decision  was  to  be 
granted  an  emissary  of  the  judge  visited  him  at  his 
home.  He  brought  with  him  two  decisions.  The 
first  was  favorable,  the  second  adverse. 

Holding  up  the  first,  the  Mexican  said,  “This 
will  cost  you  one  thousand  pesos  [$500].  The  other 
you  can  have  for  nothing.”  Thus  is  justice  admin- 
istered in  small  things.  But  in  the  larger  ones  the 
price  is  higher,  and  when  it  comes  to  cases  affecting 
a national  policy,  it  appears,  the  plaintiffs  might  as 
well  not  start  suit.  They  will  have  only  their  costs 
for  their  pains. 

Sure  of  American  Favor 
When  it  comes  to  questions  of  rights  to  oil  lands, 
the  attitude  of  the  government  is  based  on  the 
belief  that  the  American  public  is  a natural  enemy 
of  the  big  oil  interests.  One  of  the  “upper  ten”  of 
the  Mexican  government  recently  told  an  American 
representative,  “We  can  do  what  we  please  to  the 
oil  companies  and  there  will  be  only  a smirk  on  the 
face  of  the  American  public.” 

But  the  state  department  does  not  need  to  base 
its  case  on  oil,  nor  has  it  seized  any  such  slippery 
foundation.  The  great  sufferers  in  Mexico  today 
are  not  the  large  companies.  They  have  sufficient 
ways  and  means  of  working  out  their  own  destinies, 
if  the  government  fails  them. 

The  chief  victims  of  Calles’  policy  of  government 
at  the  pistol  point  have  been  the  smaller  individuals 


14 


— men  and  women  whose  whole  lives  have  been 
devoted  to  the  building  up  of  a small  property  in 
Mexico,  only  to  see  their  life  work  snatched  away 
over  night  to  suit  some  political  whim.  These  men 
are  without  recourse,  other  than  through  their 
own  government. 

Their  losses,  and  the  lives  of  Americans  sacri- 
ficed to  the  hatred  of  gringoes,  and  the  knowledge 
that  the  killing  of  a gringo,  has  in  twenty-nine 
cases  out  of  thirty  since  recognition  gone  unpun- 
ished, are  in  brief  the  basis  on  which  Americans 
here  are  hoping  for  a more  positive  policy  in 
Washington. 


MACHINE  GUN  RULE 

When  school  teachers  in  Mexico  City 
went  on  strike  because  their  salaries  were 
not  paid  machine  guns  were  turned  on 
them  to  persuade  the  survivors  to  go  back 
to  their  **popular*^  work.  Had  the  in- 
vestigators read  the  agrarian  laws  and 
their  administration  they  would  have 
found  only  conflict  with  the  Eighth 
Commandment. 

To  say  that  Mexico  is  a democratic 
government  begs  the  point.  Its  consti- 
tution is  socialistic  and,  as  one  official 
said,  contains  *"all  that  is  good  of  bol- 
shevism.^* It  was  forced  upon  the 
people,  and  every  administration  func- 
tioning under  it  has  been  a usurpation. 

(The  Wall  Street  Journal,  Aug.  7) 


16 


Mexico  and  Russia 

(The  following  A,  P.  dispatch  is  reprinted  from 
La  Prensa,  New  York:) 

Mexico  City.  August  16.  (A.  P.)  Stanislaus 
Ptskovsky,  Soviet  Minister  in  Mexico,  declared 
that  his  government  had  put  in  effect  in  1918  reli- 
gious laws  which  contained  the  principal  traits  of 
the  present  Mexican  regulations  and  that  the 
churches  in  the  beginning  refused  to  accept  them 
but  in  the  end  they  submitted,  and  that  in  the  last 
three  years  there  had  been.no  religious  disturb- 
ances in  Russia. 

Ptskovsky  does  not  draw  conclusions,  neither 
does  he  predict  the  results  which  may  take  place  in 
Mexico,  and  only  confines  himself  to  narrating  the 
Russian  experience,  saying  that  before  the  revolu- 
tion of  1917,  the  Orthodox  Russian  Church  was 
intervening  intimately  in  affairs  of  the  State  and 
had  powerful  political  influence  in  Russia. 

The  Soviets,  he  continues,  separated  the  church 
from  the  State,  submitted  the  religious  organiza- 
tions to  regulations  almost  the  same  as  those  of  Mex- 
ico, nationalized  the  properties  of  the  church  and 
prohibited  religious  instruction  to  young  people. 
Both  the  orthodox  church  and  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  refused  to  obey  and  many  priests  fought 
against  the  Soviet,  uniting  themselves  with  foreign 
invaders,  but  in  the  end  the  Soveit  conquered  the 
national  and  foreign  enemies  and  the  churches  had 
to  comply  with  the  laws. 

He  adds  that  the  Soviet  put  in  effect  educative 
and  legal  measures  in  order  to  obligate  the  churches 
to  comply  with  the  law,  and  that  the  government 
conducted  an  intensive  campaign  to  teach  the  pea 
pie  the  necessity  of  complying  with  the  laws.  That 
it  was  also  necessary  to  arrest  some  priests  and 
dignitaries  of  the  church.  He  concludes  by  saying 
that  today  the  religious  question  in  Russia  is 
merely  a matter  of  private  order. 

16 


Two  Questions  and  Their 
Answers 

Two  questions  summarize  the  attitude  of  a great 
multitude  of  Americans  toward  Mexico. 

If  Mexico  is  almost  entirely  Catholic,  how  does 
it  happen  that  the  Church  is  being  persecuted?  If 
education  has  been  in  the  hands  of  the  Church  for 
so  many  generations,  how  does  it  happen  that  the 
Mexican  people  are  so  predominantly  illiterate? 

The  first  question  is  reasonable.  The  second 
question  is  based  on  the  lies  of  anti-Catholic 
propagandists. 

Mexico  is  almost  entirely  Catholic  and  yet  it  is 
in  the  hands  of  anti-Catholics.  The  present  anti- 
Catholic  rule  of  Mexico  is  an  achievement  of 
armed  force.  The  present  anti-Catholic  constitu-, 
tion  was  framed  by  anti-Catholic  revolutionists, 
never  submitted  to  the  people,  preserved  by 
violence,  and  is  now  being  enforced  by  violence. 
The  present  anti-Catholic  faction,  in  power  since 
Carranza,  controls  the  police  and  the  military,  and 
hence  controls  all  elections,  court  proceedings,  and 
other  ordinary  means  of  redress. 

Ireland  is  predominantly  Irish,  and  yet  it  was 
dominated  and  persecuted  by  a few  Englishmen  at 
Dublin  Castle  for  centuries.  Mexico  is  Catholic, 
but  anti-Catholic  demagogues,  swept  into  power 
by  armed  revolution,  rule  Mexico  w.th  bullet  and 
bayonet. 

The  Mexican  people,  because  of  their  Aztec  an- 
cestry, are  patient,  docile,  long-suffering.  They 
are  easy  victims  for  the  political  schemer  and  the 
autocrat.  The  Mexican  is  not  taught  to  look  upon 
the  Church  as  the  American  citizen  looks  upon  it. 
Latin  Catholics  will  stand  by  and  see  their  Church 
persecuted  where  the  English  or  Irish  or  German 
Catholics  would  be  up  in  arms.  The  Latin  Catholic 
is  historically  noted  as  easy  prey  for  suave  defamers 


17 


of  his  Faith  and  plotters  against  it.  The  anti-Catholic 
politician  is  usually  a social  reformer  of  one  sort  or 
another,  and  the  novelty  and  apparent  beneficence  of 
his  ideas  dazzle  momentarily  Catholic  minds  which, 
trained  or  untrained,  have  almost  an  instinct  for 
solid  principles  and  slow  safe  progress.  With  the 
brilliance  and  blustering  of  revolution,  the  reformer 
rides  into  power.  The  Catholic  citizen  rubs  his 
eyes.  But  it  is  too  late.  There  are  the  soldiers  and 
the  police  against  him.  The  ballot  box  in  Mexico 
is  merely  a part  of  military  equipment.  Bullets 
are  counted  and  not  votes. 

The  answer  to  the  first  question  can  be  very 
briefly  put;  Catholic  Mexico  is  subject  to  anti- 
Catholic  Mexicans  because  of  the  relentless  malev- 
olence of  anti-Catholics  there,  because  of  their 
malicious  cunning,  and  because  of  their  monopoly 
of  airplanes,  machine  guns,  and  rifles.  It  is  really 
very  simple. 

The  second  question  is  based  on  lies.  For  cen- 
turies, Catholic  Mexico,  due  to  the  activity  of  Cath- 
olic priests  and  friars,  enjoyed  a reputation  for 
popular  education  unequaled  elsewhere.  Catholic 
priests  educated  the  Indians  of  Mexico  so  that  they 
became  leaders  in  the  arts  and  sciences  of  the 
world.  Popular  education  is  not  so  old  a practice  as 
some  would  think  it.  Public  school  education  in 
the  United  States,  as  it  is  sensibly  understood,  did 
not  come  into  fruitful  existence  until  the  days  of 
Horace  Mann.  And  Horace  Mann  died  in  1859.  It 
has  been  the  devastation  wrought  by  the  revolu- 
tionists in  Mexico  that  is  to  blame  for  the  present 
illiteracy  of  Mexico.  Revolutionists  and  their  ideas 
have  been  intermittently  in  power  in  Mexico  since 
the  revolution  of  1857,  which  despoiled  the  Church. 
The  government  of  Mexico  has  had  seventy  years 
to  educate  its  people  and  it  has  done  practically 
nothing.  In  days  wh^  popular  education  was,  to 
say  the  l^t,  very  much  of  an  innovaticm,  the 
Church  made  a succees  of  it.  In  days  since  1860, 


18 


when  a passion  for  popular  education  has  been  con- 
suming the  western  world  like  fire,  the  Mexican 
government  has  done  nothing. 

The  Mexican  government  is  to  blame  for  the 
present  high-rate  of  illiteracy  in  Mexico.  (Over 
eighty  per  cent,  are  illiterate.)  It  hampered  and 
d^troyed  the  educational  work  of  the  Church,  and 
did  nothing  to  replace  or  restore  it. 

The  English  colonists  came  to  the  United  States, 
fought  the  Indians,  robbed  them,  gave  no  thought 
to  their  advancement.  As  the  United  States  grew  in 
population  and  power,  the  Indian  was  hunted  and 
corraled  into  detention  areas,  and,  in  the  end, 
practically  exterminated.  The  English  found  the 
Indian  here  and  took  his  country.  What  did  the 
Spanish  Catholic  and  clergy  do  in  Mexico?  They 
trained  the  Indian,  ministered  to  him.  Mexico  is 
his  country  today  even  more  than  when  the  Cath- 
olics came.  The  American  Indian  today  is  largely 
an  object  of  pity  or  curiosity.  Some  of  them  have 
some  wealth  through  accident.  But  they  are  few 
and  America  is  no  longer  their  country. 

Several  passages  from  an  article  by  Bishop 
Francis  C.  Kelley,  an  authority  on  the  Mexican 
Indian,  substantiate  this  encomium  of  the  Church’s 
great  educational  work  in  Mexico.  “Let  us  be  fair,” 
writes  His  Lordship,  discussing  the  colonizing  work 
of  England  and  Spain.  * “Spain  preserved  where  we 
destroyed.  With  a constantly  diminishing  Indian 
population,  wards  of  the  State,  having  schools  and 
colleges  for  all  who  wish  to  enter  them,  what  one 
of  our  Indians  has  ever  shown  the  governmental 
and  military  genius  of  a Diaz,  the  intelligent  brav- 
ery of  a Mejia,  the  surgical  ability  of  a Urrutia,  the 
philosophical  knowledge  of  a Munguia,  the  science 
of  a Carrillo  y Azcona,  the  theological  training  of 
an  Alarcon,  the  poetic  fire  of  an  Altamirano,  the 
political  acumen  of  an  Estagnol,  the  legal  and 


*“A  Sociologist  in  Mejdco,”  The  Paulist  Press. 


19 


journalistic  career  of  Sanchez  Santos,  the  artistic 
talents  of  Panduro  and  Velasquez?  Yes,  all 
Indians.  Name  those  of  ours  whose  genius  has 
made  such  marks  on  the  history  of  our  country. 
Sitting  Bull?  Geronimo?  Alas!  such  a beginning 
speaks  badly  for  an  ending.  Think  this  over  before 
you  condemn  Spanish  civilization  in  the  Americas. 
We  have  little  to  show  for  one  hundred  years  of 
"Anglo-Saxon"’  attempts  to  uplift  our  Indians. 
Yet,  the  Indians  of  Mexico  have  produced  men  of 
letters,  artists,  statemen,  soldiers,  scientists,  learned 
bishops  and  priests — men  of  genius.” 

Again  writes  Bishop  Kelley:  "As  in  the  United 
States,  the  pioneers  of  education  in  Mexico  were 
the  clergy,  and  there  was  no  hesitation  about  tak- 
ing up  the  burden;  but,  unlike  the  English  colo- 
nists, the  Spaniards  at  once  went  out  with  it  to  the 
Indian  population.  The  letters  of  Cortez  tell  of 
friars  coming  at  his  request  while  he  was  still  in 
command.  In  1723  there  were  2,396  of  three 
Orders  only.  In  1570,  there  were  fifty-one  Francis- 
can missions  in  the  Archdiocese  of  Mexico  alone, 
and  a school  in  each  where  children  were  taught  to 
read  and  write.  The  friars  had  not  teachers  enough, 
for  they  kept  calling  for  more.  No  church  was 
without  its  school.  Sahagun  established  a college 
at  Santa  Cruz,  in  spite  of  those  who  said  that  the 
Indians  were  incapable  of  learning.  But  Indian 
professors  were  trained,  and  the  school  was  turned 
over  to  their  care.  A complaint  against  the  clergy 
for  the  activities  in  education  was  sent  by  one 
Lopez  to  the  King.  . . . The  law  for  the  educa- 
tion of  the  Indians  provided  for  schools  wherever 
possible  at  no  cost  to  the  Indians.  ("Laws  of  the 
Indies.”)  The  laws  of  the  Church  put  the  obliga- 
tion of  establishing  schools  on  every  curate.  The 
first  Archbishop  of  Mexico  and  the  Viceroy  Men- 
doza set  up  the  first  printing  press  in  America.  This 
Archbishop  saw  an  Indian  graduate  of  Sahagun’s 
College  of  Santa  Cruz  become  a professor  of  Span- 


20 


ish  and  Governor  of  the  City  of  Mexico.  What 
Indian  became  Governor  of  Plymouth?  In  1544 
this  printing  press  was  turning  out  books  for  the 
natives  who  could  read.  The  Viceroy  explained  the 
quantity  turned  out  by  the  fact  that  ‘there  were  so 
many  who  could  read  and  write.’  Thomas  Gage, 
an  Englishman,  wondered  at  the  wealth  and  power 
in  the  hands  of  ‘Indian  Dons’  who  were  even  gov- 
ernors. Humboldt  was  in  Mexico  in  1803  and 
wrote  of  the  prosperity  of  the  Indians.  Trade 
schools  were  not  wanting.  The  University  of  Mex- 
ico was  opened  in  1653.  Two  hundred  and  four 
years  before  Harvard  took  up  the  study  of  medi- 
cine, this  university  had  its  medical  school.  Eighty- 
six  years  before  Hunter  opened  the  first  school  of 
dissection  in  England,  Mexico  had  started  the 
study  of  anatomy  and  surgery  with  dissection.  It 
would  take  volumes  to  write  the  story  of  the  educa- 
tional activity  of  Spanish  Mexico.” 


SATANIC  HUMOR 

It  is  amusing  to  read  of  Calles*  attack 
on  the  Catholic  Church  because  of  its 
interference  in  Mexican  politics.  His 
attack  would  lead  one  to  think  that  the 
Church  in  Mexico  is  powerful,  auto^ 
cratic,  that  it  terrorized  its  followers, 
that  it  controlled  the  government. 
What  does  one  find:  an  unhappy  insti^ 
tution,  its  clergy  mocked  and  persecute 
ed,  its  property  stolen,  its  activities 
strangled,  the  butt  of  an  anti-Catholic 
government,  fighting  for  its  very  exists 
ence  against  vicious  and  dominant 
enemies.  We  are  told  that  the  Church 
is  **meddling  in  politics.**  Calles  has  a 
Satanic  sense  of  humor. 


21 


Bolshevism  in  Mexico 

{The  following  editorials  are  reprinted  from  the 
Wall  Street  Journal  through  the  courtesy  of  the  pub- 
lishers,) 

An  Insecure  Foundation 

In  further  pursuance  of  its  plan  for  breeding  red 
vermin  in  Mexico,  the  Calles  administration's 
regulations  for  expulsion  of  foreign  ministers  and 
teachers  of  religion  go  into  effect  on  August  1.  We 
are  more  interested  in  this  movement  than  we 
would  be  if  Mexico  were  breeding  boll  weevils  to 
infest  our  fields.  It  will  be  of  interest  therefore  to 
note  bolshevism's  utter  indifference  to  law  and 
order  in  the  furtherance  of  its  designs. 

These  regulations  are  absolutely  null  and  void 
for  three  fundamental  reasons: 

(1)  The  president  had  no  legal  power  to  make 
them. 

(2)  Calles  is  not  legally  qualified  to  act  as  presi- 
dent. 

(3)  The  constitution  of  1917  has  never  been 
legally  adopted. 

Article  27  of  the  constitution  of  1917  forbids 
churches,  “irrespective  of  creed”  to  hold  property. 
Article  130  forbids  anyone  from  being  a minister  of 
any  religious  creed  unless  he  is  a Mexican  by  birth, 
and  provides  several  other  restrictions.  Not  the 
Catholic  church  alone,  but  all  religious  denomina- 
tions come  under  these  provisions.  Congress 
authorized  Calles  to  amend  the  penal  code.  He 
stretched  this  authorization  to  include  regulations 
for  enforcing  the  constitutional  provisions  against 
religion.  Congress  alone  could  do  this  by  enacting 
a statute.  His  justification  is  that  he  provided 
penalties  for  infraction  of  the  articles. 

The  congressional  authorization  of  the  president 
to  amend  the  penal  code  was  illegal.  Article  49  of 
the  constitution  says: 


22 


"The  supreme  power  of  the  Federation  is  divided 
for  its  exercise  into  legislative,  executive  and 
judicial.  Two  or  more  of  these  powers  shall  never 
be  united  in  one  person  or  corporation,  nor  shall 
the  legislative  power  be  vested  in  one  individual 
except  in  case  of  extraordinary  powers  granted  to 
the  executive  in  accordance  with  provisions  of 
Article  29.^^ 

Notwithstanding  this  provision  of  the  constitu- 
tion congress  vested  legislative  power  in  the  presi- 
dent. He,  in  turn,  went  even  beyond  the  specific 
authorization,  and  legislated  other  matters. 

It  cannot  be  said  that  this  granting  of  legislative 
powers  to  the  president  was  in  accordance  with  the 
provisions  of  Article  29.  That  article  only  “in  cases 
of  invasion,  grave  disturbance  of  the  public  peace 
or  any  other  emergency  which  may  place  society  in 
grave  danger  or  conflict,”  gives  the  president  cer- 
tain powers  for  “meeting  the  situation  promptly 
and  readily.”  This  practically  corresponds  to  our 
provision  for  suspending  the  habeas  corpus.  The 
grant  of  legislative  power  therefore  was  absolutely 
void. 

Article  82,  section  7 of  the  constitution  relating 
to  qualifications  for  president  says: 

“He  shall  not  have  taken  part  directly  or  in- 
directly in  any  uprising,  riot  or  military  coup.” 

As  Calles  was  one  of  the  ringleaders  in  the 
“military  coup”  in  which  Carranza  was  overthrown 
in  1920  he  is  disqualified  by  the  authority  under 
which  he  claims  to  act. 

But  this  constitution  also  is  not  the  c(  nstitution 
of  Mexico.  The  constitution  of  1857,  in  force  when 
Carranza  revolted,  provided  that  amendments 
should  be  passed  by  Congress  and  approved  by  a 
majority  of  the  state  legislatures.  This  was  never 
done.  Carranza  called  a convention  at  which  only 
his  known  adherents  were  allowed  to  sit  as  dele- 
gates. That  body  adopted  the  present  constitution. 
It  was  not  passed  by  congress;  it  was  not  approved 


23 


by  a majority  of  the  state  legislatures,  and  there- 
fore is  void. 

On  these  foundations  the  Mexican  administra- 
tion stands  in  beginning  its  war  against  religion. 

— July  28. 

Not  a Catholic  Question 

Mexican  government's  new  decree  in  which  she 
places  a muzzle  on  the  religious  press  again  brings 
the  church  matter  to  the  front.  Heretofore,  there 
has  been  a disposition  to  look  upon  this  as  a con- 
troversy between  the  Catholic  church  and  the 
Mexican  government — something  of  which  we  as  a 
people  could  take  no  cognizance.  But  a little  study 
will  show  that  it  does  concern  the  whole  United 
States,  and  therefore  is  an  American  question. 

Mexico,  as  a sovereign  state,  has  the  legal  right 
to  make  any  laws  it  pleases  concerning  religion, 
speech,  press  or  future  acquisitions  of  property. 
She  may  be  within  her  sovereign  rights  in  banishing 
priests  and  teachers,  or  adopting  restrictive  laws 
against  religious  organizations.  But  the  United 
States  has  the  right  to  look  at  those  laws  and  all 
that  takes  place  as  a result  of  them.  If  she  finds 
those  laws  based  on  doctrines  in  direct  conflict  with 
her  ideals  of  citizenship  and  dangerous  to  her  insti- 
tutions she,  as  a sovereign  state,  has  the  right  to 
refuse  to  encourage  their  spread  within  her  own 
borders. 

Mexico's  new  constitution  swept  away  all  semb- 
lance of  religious  liberty.  Parents  are  denied  the 
sacred  right  to  have  their  children  educated  accord- 
ing to  their  consciences  even  in  private  schools.  In 
the  enforcement  of  the  laws  based  on  the  constitu- 
tional provisions  women — girls  and  nuns — have 
been  treated  in  a way  that  cannot  be  described  in 
public  print.  As  in  Russia,  the  idea  back  of  all  this 
is  to  deliberately  break  down  and  destroy  that  very 
thing  which  we  hold  basic  for  the  preservation  and 
upbuilding  of  our  free  institutions. 


24 


This  is  the  Red  doctrine,  which  is  in  direct  con- 
flict with  our  conceptions  of  government  and 
citizenship.  Our  institutions  are  founded  on  certain 
basic  truths.  In  the  adoption  of  the  present  con- 
stitution, the  enactment  of  various  laws  in  accord- 
ance with  the  provisions  of  that  constitution,  Mex- 
ico shows  her  hostility  to  our  doctrines  and  her 
adherence  to  those  of  the  Reds.  Between  the  two 
there  can  be  no  compromise.  Self-protection 
demands  that  we  do  not  encourage  the  spread  of 
the  Mexican  doctrines  in  our  own  country. 

Bolshevism  in  Russia  was  not  considered  a purely 
Russian  question.  We,  as  a nation,  had  no  right  to 
say  what  doctrines  that  country  should  uphold.  But 
the  possible  spread  of  those  doctrines  to  the  United 
States  was  something  of  which  we  could  take  cogni- 
zance, and  in  that  sense  it  became  an  American 
question.  We  refused  to  recognize  the  Soviet  gov- 
ernment for  the  reason  that  we  could  not  put  the 
stamp  of  our  approval  upon  the  Red  doctrines  which 
we  hold  to  be  subversive  to  our  institutions. 

For  the  same  reason  and  to  the  same  extent^that 
faraway  Russia's  plan  of  government  became  an 
American  question  so  too  does  that  of  nearby 
Mexico.  — July  9. 


PERSECUTION 

Since  1875  the  anti-Catholic  dictators 
have  set  up,  with  State  funds,  scurrilous 
and  antUCatholic  newspapers;  they  have 
imposed  fantastic  fines  on  congregations 
as  the  price  of  allowing  the  churches  to 
remain  open;  they  have  looted  altars 
and  smuggled  stolen  altar  vessels  across 
our  border  to  he  sold  as  old  metal;  they 
have  burned  more  libraries  than  were 
destroyed  in  the  Thirty  Years^  War. 

{Dr,  C,  E,  McGuire,  Current  History,  July) 


25 


Calles  and  Catholicism 

{The  following  letter  appeared  in  Hey  wood  Broun*  s 
column  in  the  New  York  World  of  August  22.  The 
writer  asked  that  his  name  he  withheld  because,  he 
says,  “I  live  in  Mexico  and  I have  to  go  hack  there 
pretty  quick,”  The  letter  is  reprinted  through  the 
courtesy  of  the  New  York  World,) 

I am  an  American,  a Protestant  and  a Mason, 
which  ought  to  satisfy  even  Bishop  Leonard  that  I 
have  no  briefs  for  Rome  concealed  about  my  per- 
son. Apparently  Calles  is  not  a Catholic.  So  far  as 
I know  he  holds  to  no  religious  faith,  although  I 
have  heard  him  say  that  he  is  a believer  in  God.  He 
is  a Mason,  but  in  Mexico  most  members  of  that 
fraternity  are  Catholics.  * When  he  sets  about  the 
business  of  dying,  Calles  probably  will  call  in  a 
priest,  if  he  retains  his  senses.  If  he  happens  to  be 
unconscious,  his  family  will. 

The  Calles  womenfolk  are  Catholics.  When  one 
of  his  daughters  was  married  a while  ago,  the  reli- 
gious ceremony  took  place  in  Santa  Brigida’s,  the 
uitra-fashionable  Catholic  church  of  Mexico  City, 
much  and  piously  resorted  to  at  present  by  the  new 
aristocracy  emanating  from  the  revolution  which 
has  set  up  in  business  in  the  capital.  Calles 
absented  himself  from  the  wedding,  possibly  be- 
cause a sense  of  decency  inhibited  him  from  enter- 
ing the  edifice  which  in  1915  was  sacked,  defaced 
and  defiled  by  his  and  Obregon’s  Yaqui  Indian  sol- 
diers, who  did  it  because  they  were  so  ordered.  If  I 
recall  correctly,  the  bland  Obregon  attended,  for 
the  bridegroom  was  his  private  secretary. 

There  is  nothing  complex  or  recondite  about  the 
current  conflict  between  the  Government  and  the 
Catholic  Church  in  Mexico.  It  is  very  simple. 
Here  is  the  A B C of  it: 

1.  Calles  seeks  to  justify  his  drive  upon  the 


♦Editor’s  Note:  This  must  of  course  be  taken  with  reservations. 


26 


church  by  accusing  it  of  mixing  in  politics.  Doubt- 
ful, very.  The  facts  do  not  sustain  the  argument. 
It  is  certain  that  whatever  mixing-in  the  church 
may  have  been  doing,  covertly  or  overtly,  it  was 
neither  important  nor  effective.  The  church  has 
npt  been  a political  factor  in  Mexico  since  1867, 
when  Juarez  shot  Maximilian,  who  was  induced  to 
take  the  throne  and  try  to  make  something  out  of 
the  country,  largely  through  the  insinuations  of 
Catholic  leaders  who  were  Mexicans  and  who  at 
the  time  certainly  had  as  much  right  to  speak  for 
the  people  as  any  of  the  other  political  paladins 
who  were  cavorting  and  orating  and  shooting  all 
over  the  place. 

If  the  church  was  so  powerful  and  ambitious 
politically  as  Calles  tries  to  make  out,  it  seems  curi- 
ous that  it  was  not  strong  enough  to  have  kept  in 
office  Diaz — who  gave  the  church  its  head,  pretty 
much,  within  wholesomely  circumscribed  limits,  in- 
side of  which  the  hierarchy  was  content  to  keep — 
and  his  crowd,  and  to  have  resisted  successfully  the 
onrush  of  the  revolutionary  tide.  If  the  church  was 
as  virile  and  predacious  politically  as  Calles  pro- 
claims it  to  be,  his  Government  would  not  last 
longer  than  a $2  bill  in  one  of  your  New  York  night 
clubs.  Doesn't  that  sound  reasonable?  The  church 
v/as  not  interfering  with  Calles.  It  couldn't,  for 
Calles  has  the  guns  and  the  church  hasn't. 

2.  This  ravening  against  the  church  is  merely  a 
logical,  but  somewhat  retarded,  development  of  the 
revolutionary  program.  As  all  revolutions  which 
have  anything  of  proletarian  support,  the  Mexican 
revolution  is  fundamentally  opposed  to  three 
things — the  old  order,  whatever  it  may  be,  capital 
and  the  nationally  predominant  religion.  If  the 
Protestant  denominations  occupied  the  place  in 
Mexico  that  the  Catholics  do,  the  Protestants 
would  be  getting  the  same  medicine  that  the  Cath- 
olics are.  For  sixteen  years  the  Mexican  revolu- 
tionists have  been  rough-housing  capital  and  every- 


27 


thing  else  that  oiffended  their  notions  of  the  suit- 
able— ^including  patient,  long  suffering  Uncle 
Samuel — and  squaring  ancient  personal  and  po- 
litical grudges.  They  are  only  now  getting  around 
to  attend  to  the  church’s  case. 

3.  The  assertion  of  Government  spokesmen  that 
the  Catholic  schools  constitute  a menace  to  free 
institutions  and  the  progress  of  the  country  because 
of  the  poison  they  distil  into  the  minds  of  the  youth 
of  Mexico  is,  of  course,  sublime  rot.  In  more  than  a 
century,  what  have  the  various  civil  Governments 
of  Mexico  done  to  educate  the  people?  Virtually 
nothing.  What  is  Calles  doing?  Hardly  more,  save 
on  paper.  Who  founded  the  principal  institutions  of 
higher  learning  in  Mexico?  The  Catholics.  The 
best  schools  in  Mexico  are — or  were,  until  Calles 
shut  them  up — the  church  schools.  The  average 
Mexican  who  can  afford  it  either  ships  his  children 
out  of  the  country  to  be  educated,  or  sends  them  to 
the  church  schools  in  Mexico.  He  puts  them  into 
the  church  schools,  not  because  of  religious  con- 
sideration but  on  account  of  the  superior  scholastic 
advantages  they  offer  over  the  Government  schools. 
Jealousy  of  the  superiority  of  the  Catholic  schools 
and  a desire  to  force  the  children  who  attend  the 
latter  into  the  Federal  schools  is  partly  responsible 
for  the  padlocking  of  the  church  schools.  What  has 
the  Calles  Government  to  offer  in  the  stead  of  the 
church  schools  which  have  been  put  out  of  business? 
Nothing. 

4.  Outside  of  Calles  and  his  intimate  circle  of 
“yesmen”  there  was  absolutely  no  demand  for  the 
rigorous  enforcement  ordered  by  him  of  the  anti- 
church clauses  in  the  revolutionary  Constitution. 
Not  one  per  cent,  of  the  people  gave  a hurrah  in 
hell  one  way  or  the  other.  Power  always  goes  to  a 
Mexican’s  head — to  the  heads  of  most  folks,  in  fact. 
Calles  is  on  top  and  he  is  grinding  the  faces  of  the 
Catholics  in  the  grit  because  he  can,  and  he  doesn’t 
like  them  anyway.  If  the  Mexican  Catholics  were 


28 


in  the  driver's  seat  they'd  be  putting  the  bud  to 
Calles  as  he  is  lacing  it  into  them. 

5.  This  anti-Catholic  movement — and  right  here 
we  come  to  the  real  bug  under  the  chip — will  serve 
as  an  excuse  for  trying  to  steal  considerable  real 
property  of  various  sorts  which  the  Government 
has  reason  for  believing  has  been  accumulated  more 
or  less  covertly  by  representatives  of  the  church 
since  1857  (I  am  not  sure  of  the  date,  but  it  hap- 
pened about  that  time),  when  the  then  Govern- 
ment of  Mexico,  figuratively  speaking,  held  up  the 
church  by  the  heels  and  shook  every  centavo  of  its 
real  wealth  out  of  its  pockets.  Most  of  the  pro- 
ceeds, consisting  of  rich  farming  and  productive 
urban  property,  were  either  bestowed  outright,  or 
nomindly  sold  at  a small  fraction  of  its  value,  to 
deserving  patriots.  Many  of  the  huge  present-day 
fortunes  of  aristocratic  families  in  Mexico  were 
founded  upon  these  malversions  of  the  mid-nine- 
teenth century.  It's  the  old  army  game. 


WHAT  THE  PEOPLE  WANT 

When  unjust  laws  which  go  against 
the  immense  majority  of  the  Mexican 
people  are  derogated  or  reformed — 
which  is  what  the  people  are  yearning 
for — when  laws  sacredly  guarantee  relU 
gious  liberty,  then,  in  everything  which 
lies  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  State, 
neither  the  Bishops  nor  the  Sovereign 
will  interpose  themselves.  They  will 
do  as  they  do  in  the  United  States, 
where  the  Constitution  and  laws  per- 
mit  religious  liberty. 

{Archbishop  Del  Rio,  in  N.  Y.  World,  Aug,  10) 


29 


Their  War  Record 
Is  Not  Dimmed 

In  extending  the  welcome  of  the  city  to  their 
delegates,  assembled  in  Philadelphia  for  the  forty- 
fourth  annual  convention  of  their  Supreme  Coun- 
cil, Mayor  Kendrick  told  the  Knights  of  Columbus 
that  he  was  “one  of  the  many  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands who  were  impressed  and  satisfied  with  the 
splendid  help  you  gave  your  country  and  om* 
allies  during  the  trying  times  of  the  late  war.”  No 
one  who  has  read  the  resolutions  taken  by  the  dele- 
gates in  their  subsequent  meetings  can  question 
the  determination  of  the  Knights  of  Columbus  to 
continue  to  be  of  service  to  the  nation,  wherever  it 
is  possible.  A pledge  of  $1,000,000,  involving  an 
assessment  on  eight  hundred  thousand  members  of 
the  Order  at  large,  is  significant  of  a patriotism  not 
satisfied  with  mere  ideals.  That  sum  was  voted  to 
serve  the  cause  of  stamping  out  from  these  United 
States  the  politics  of  Soviet  Russia,  and  to  make 
possible  in  Mexico  the  enjoyment  of  liberty  of 
conscience  and  democratic  freedom.  Careful 
perusal  of  the  full  text  of  the  resolution  is  likely  to 
impress  one  with  the  fact  that  the  solicitude  of  the 
Knights  for  the  causes  they  have  espoused,  is  not 
without  foundation. 

No  secrecy  shrouded  the  deliberations  of  the 
Supreme  Council,  in  their  three-day's  session  at 
Philadelphia.  The  superb  accomplishments  of  the 
past  year,  and  the  plans  that  were  approved  for 
future  prosecution,  are  a matter  of  public  record. 
It  is  a record  likely  to  win  the  commendation  not 
only  of  all  members  of  the  Order,  but  of  every 
thinking  American  who  has  the  interest  of  humani- 
ty at  heart. — America, 


30 


NOWHERE  OUTSIDE 
OF  RUSSIA 

{From  The  Mirror,  Springfield) 

Nowhere  outside  of  Russia  is  relU 
gious  training  absolutely  forbidden  ex- 
cept in  Mexico,  where  the  name  of 
God  must  not  be  mentioned  in  schools; 
no  symbol  or  picture  of  a religious 
nature  must  be  displayed  on  the  walls; 
no  scapular  or  medal  must  be  found  on 
the  person  of  any  pupil. 

Nowhere  outside  of  Russia  is  trial  by 
jury  denied  to  all  who  urge  that  the 
national  Constitution  be  amended  ex- 
cept in  Mexico,  where  all  the  anti- 
religious  provisions  of  the  infamous 
Constitution  of  1917  are  made  sacro- 
sanct. 

Nowhere  oustide  of  Russia  is  freedom 
of  speech  absolutely  denied  to  all  as  it  is 
in  Mexico,  where  the  religious  press  is 
forbidden  to  comment  on  any  act  of  the 
government;  the  right  of  peaceful 
assemblage,  to  protest  against  the  in- 
justice of  the  law,  is  denied,  and  those 
who  circulate  petitions  to  amend  the 
Constitution  are  summarily  thrown 
into  jail,  because  all  criticism  of  the 
religious  provisions  of  the  Constitution 
is  unconstitutional. 


CONFIDENCE 

{An  extract  from  an  editorial  in  The  Cath- 
olic Standard  and  Times,  diocesan  publication 
of  Philadelphia.  The  editorial  is  especially 
significant  in  view  of  the  fact  that  Philadelphia 
was  the  Convention  City  in  which  the  Knights 
passed  their  now  historic  resolution.) 

The  Knights  of  Columbus,  in  the 
resolutions  passed  at  the  Supreme  Con- 
vention just  held  in  this  city,  justified 
the  Catholic  confidence  reposed  in 
them.  In  ringing  tones  they  set  forth 
their  position  as  sterling  American 
citizens*  an  integral  part  of  this 
nation  they  demand  that  this  govern- 
ment he  true  to  its  record  of  helping 
the  persecuted  and  oppressed  among 
weaker  nations  within  our  sphere  of 
direct  influence* 

The  danger  to  our  own  nation  is  also 
set  forth  very  consistently*  A complete 
breakdown  of  liberty,  brought  about  by 
armed  communism,  is  a dangerous 
infection  on  our  frontier*  No  need  for 
the  Knights  of  Columbus  to  point  out 
that  the  **Red**  bacilli  are  already  at 
work  among  definite  groups  in  our  own 
country*  The  government  knows  this 
too  and  understands  very  well  that  the 
Knights  of  Columbus  are  justified  in 
their  statement* 

* * * 

The  action  of  the  Knights  of  Colum- 
bus is  cheering  and  wholesome* 

rpLumBix 

NEW  HAVEN*  CONN. 


